P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY REP. BY GPA LAXMI NARAYAN REDDY & ANR. versus P. NEERADHA REDDY & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 13-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 1 S.C.R. 1108 
A 
P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY REP. BY GPA LAXMI NARAYAN 
B 
REDDY & ANR. 
v. 
P. NEERADHA REDDY & ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5254 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY 13, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
C 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Or. 7, r. 11 - Exercise of 
power under, scope - Discussed - In the instant case, suits 
filed for declaration of title and possession - Plaintiffs case 
was that they were living abroad and entrusted the defendants 
the task of purchasing immovable property for them and when 
D they visited India, they came to know that the defendants 
purchased the property in the name of defendant no.3 and 4 
- Immediately thereafter the plaintiff filed suit for declaration 
of title and possession - Defendants contested the suit on the 
ground of limitation and filed application for rejection of plaint 
E - Trial court dismissed the application - High Court set aside 
the order of trial court - Held: Both the suits were filed well 
within three years of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the 
plaintiffs, of the fact that the property had not been transferred 
in their name by the defendants - The said averments made 
F in the plaint are accepted as correct for the purposes of 
consideration of the application u!Or. 7 r. 11 filed by the 
defendants - The averrnents in the plaint did not disclose that 
the suits were barred by limitation so- as to justify rejection of 
the plaint u!Or. 7 r. 11. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Rejection of plaint under Order VII rule 11 of 
H 
1108 
P.V. GURU RAJ REDDY REP. BY GPA LAXMI NARAYAN 1109 
REDDY v. P. NEERADHA REDDY 
the CPC is a drastic power conferred in the court to 
A 
terminate a civil action at the threshold. It is the 
averments in the plaint that has to be read as a whole to 
find out whether it discloses a cause of action or whether 
the suit is barred under any law. At the stage of exercise 
of power under Order VII rule 11, the stand of the 
B 
defendants in the written statement or in the application 
for rejection of the plaint is wholly immaterial. It is only if 
the averments in the plaint ex facie do not disclose a 
cause of action or on a reading thereof the suit appears 
C 
to be barred under any law the plaint can be rejected. In 
all other situations, the claims will have to be adjudicated 
in the course of the trial. In the present i;ase, reading the 
plaint as a whole and proceeding on the basis that the 
averments made therein are correct, which is what the 
D 
Court is required to do, it cannot be said that the said 
pleadings ex facie discloses that the suit is barred by 
limitation or is barred under any other provision of law. 
The claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the knowledge 
of the essential facts giving rise to the cause of action as 
E 
pleaded will have to be accepted as correct. Both the 
suits were filed in July 2002 which was well within three 
years of the date of knowledge, as claimed by the 
plaintiffs, of the fact that the property had not been 
transferred in the name of plaintiff No.2 by the defendants 
F 
Nos. 1 and 2. The said averments made in the plaint have 
to be accepted as correct for the purposes of 
consideration of the application under Order VII rule 11 
filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. [Paras 5, 6, 9) [1111-
G-H; 1112-A-D; 1114-C] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5254 
of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2003 of the · H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil 
Revision Petition No. 1398 of 2003. 
K. Radhakrishna, Promila for the Appellants. 
8 
R. Venkataramani, G. N. Reddy, Pramod Reddy, M. 
Balashivudu, Yashraj Singh Bundela, Neelam Singh, Chandan 
Kumar, Anil Kumar Tandale, K. Maruthi Rao, K. Radha, Anjani 
Aiyagari for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was tfelivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge two 
separate though largely similar orders both dated 26th June, 
2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at 
Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition Nos.1398 and 1399 of 
D 2003. By the aforesaid orders, the High Court, in reversal of 
the order of the learned trial judge, has allowed the applications 
filed by the defendants under Order VII rule 11 of the Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the CPC"). 
Aggrieved, the plaintiffs are before us in this appeal. 
E 
2. Original Suit Nos. 71 and 72 o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.